To: TimF who wrote (851593 ) 4/22/2015 4:13:57 PM From: i-node Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1577268 >> IMO you should have a right to refuse service is you have a non-religious objection as well. I don't generally disagree with this philosophy. However, being a child of the 50s/60s, I do believe that the Civil Rights law would have been less effective had the requirement not been there. I remember the doctor's office having a white entrance out front, and a black entrance around back. No black person would have walked in the front door of my dad's restaurant, but blacks came to the back door constantly. I still recall the day a black first came in the front door of the restaurant. It was a military or national guard unit, all white except for about three blacks. Military units often stopped in to eat, and they were always placed in the large private dining room. In this case, the waitress refused to serve them. "I ain't serving no N*s". He didn't fire her but he didn't have any trouble finding another waitress who had no objection. That was the beginning of the end for Bertha (the waitress). Within a couple years, she was serving blacks, whites, or anyone else. I just don't know if that would have happened quite so easily where the apartheid was so engrained in society. There was a town in Mississippi, not far from where I lived in Arkansas, that during my lifetime had "laughing barrels" on the sidewalks: I recall as a kid driving through Greenville, Texas, which proudly displayed the following: I understand where people of the era were coming from and how we got there. But my sense is this kind of thinking would have been very difficult to root out without a law that forced small business to accept the change. Today, we don't need those laws. I can't think of any minority that is so seriously discriminated against as blacks were at that time.